theocracy

"it is in the Quran that Muslims are to live under theocracies, they are to be ruled by the Caliphate. Concepts like secularist democracy, communism, socialism and all these other "isms" are not only extraneous to Islam but they work against its very being. These concepts are un/anti-Islamic. . . . Saying that one hates Islamic theocaries but doesn't have anything against Muslims per se, is like saying that they don't have anyting against Catholics but hate them having a pope."

There are a couple problems with this: First is that, even in the Islamic nations, not everyone is Muslim - and usually these are members of communities that predate Islam, so you can hardly fault them for being interlopers. Why should they have to live under religious law? Likewise, there are many different sects of Islam, many of which do not want a theocracy. Why should they have to live under religious laws or a system which they strongly oppose?

Meanwhile, no one in the West is preventing "true Muslims" from living under a voluntary system of religious law. No one is preventing them from having their own "Muslim Pope" if they want one. The comparison is not to Catholics having a Pope, but to Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Pagans and Atheists being required to obey the Pope.

Perhaps the greater problem is that we still have nation-states whose borders do not reflect the people living within them - and perhaps the answer is to create preserves for those who want to live under the theocracy of their choice. I have a feeling that there would not be many takers, however, if a government were formed which respected the rights of its citizens.